PS Now had a chance to view all the links at the other thread. It appears that the key article explaining how/why Walker is a YEC (or C) is on the website of The Times (I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege of reading it). Walker appears to have said nothing about creationism on his own blog.

Personally I think there would be a problem IF he tried to hi-jack a science type news story on BBC Breakfast for his own ends. Or if he is a hardline YEC but started saying something like "if I am unacceptable as a presenter how come other Christians like Jeremy Vine are tolerated".

PPS at 11.06 pmAiG's Simon Turpin is on the case (and apparently he has either paid to read the article in The Times or bought a paper copy whilst such copies are still available in newsagents):https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simo ... -uk-media/(11.10 pm - the Turpin article is tripe imho. For instance this mendacity/lunacy:"For example, Carbon-14, or C-14, actually confirms a young age for the Earth. C-14 breaks down relatively quickly with a half-life of 5,730 years. Material older than about 95,000 years should have no detectable C-14, yet we still find it in coal and diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old. The fact that we find C-14 in diamonds confirms the biblical timescale of creation and is a problem for evolutionists.")

Talking of hardline Christians who appear to have something of a martyr complex when it comes to creationism (I didn't listen to the NI BBC radio programme but I have spotted this):

Indeed Ashley, again we get this confusion that Walker is being hounded because he's a Christian which simply isn't true. YECism isn't Christianity, but getting this message through to YECs is like banging your head against a brick wall. Walker is being "hounded" because he's a YEC.

It's all very well Robertson claiming his beliefs have nothing to do with his ability to present the news, but what if he's talking to a BBC science correspondent and they mention the term "millions (or billions) of years ago ? What then ? Is walker going to challenge him/her and say "that's your interpretation of the evidence" ??????

Walker will be quizzed about his beliefs time and time again when the topic of science comes up.

AiG's Simon Turpin is on the case (and apparently he has either paid to read the article in The Times or bought a paper copy whilst such copies are still available in newsagents):https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simo ... -uk-media/(11.10 pm - the Turpin article is tripe imho. For instance this mendacity/lunacy:"For example, Carbon-14, or C-14, actually confirms a young age for the Earth. C-14 breaks down relatively quickly with a half-life of 5,730 years. Material older than about 95,000 years should have no detectable C-14, yet we still find it in coal and diamonds, which are supposed to be millions of years old. The fact that we find C-14 in diamonds confirms the biblical timescale of creation and is a problem for evolutionists.")

No doubt AiG will call foul as usual.

Every time they blabber off these claims someone should remind them how and why geologists figured out the Earth was very old, and it was long before radiometric dating.

AiG ran an article by Turpin on their Facebook page a few days ago about the headmistress of an Anglican school who got criticized for saying she didn't "believe in evolution" and this also came up in the discussion today and subsequent phone in.

It would appear Robertson is at the very least an OEC, but he's "sitting on the fence" with respect to evolution".

Michael Nugent was pretty good and knew his stuff on evolution and big bang cosmology, especially when one clueless caller phoned in and stated that "nothing was ever created from an explosion".

This is what The Times had to say on 11 Feb (courtesy of my local library's online service)

It is not because the 38-year-old sports presenter and son of a Baptist preacher insists on taking Sundays off to practise his faith. It is because he is also a creationist, as confirmed by his spokeswoman last night.

Creationists believe that the Earth was created by God, with some believing in the literal truth of the Bible's account that the world was created in six days within the past 10,000 years.

A senior BBC figure claimed that Walker believed in the truth of the story of creation as told in Genesis. The source had nothing against Walker replacing the current presenter, Bill Turnbull, from the end of this month but found the whole thing a "bit nutty".

"It's quite rare to be a young Earth creationist," the insider said. "It's pretty loopsville stuff to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that the animals went two-by-two into the ark. As a journalist, how can that be? "It could create difficulties on some stories — say they have a story about an exciting new dinosaur fossil.

How is he going to square a fossil that is 75,000 years old with his belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?" Others at the BBC said it was easy to reconcile such beliefs with objective reporting and believed that Walker would cover any story that was put his way.

Peter Henderson wrote:What the times is describing are young Earth creationists Brian.

There is of course a broad spectrum of views within Christianity on this, all the way from flat earthism/geo centrism to varying types of theistic evolution.

Essentially, all Christians are "creationists", but not all Christians are young Earth creationists.

Sure, but that's just the Times talking. The BBC source referred to conflict between science and Walker's (presumed? alleged?) belief that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. His representative did nothing to dispel the idea that he believes that.Meanwhile, there's an amusing article by Catherine Bennett in the Guardian/Observer regretting the circus element of promoting a sports commenter to front a general news programme.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/14/bbc-breakfast-dan-walker-creationist-fact-fiction

Another creationists sportsman in the news. In the early hours I heard on the World Service that some footballer (I can't remember his name) has announced himself a creationist and posed the important (according to the announcer) question (I paraphrase:) "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"After all, it's certainly self-evident there are still monkeys: I'd just heard one speaking of another.Phah!

According to Sibley "However, Rupert Myers, who is a freelance journalist, barrister, and self-proclaimed Christian, wrote a piece in The Daily Telegraph expressing distaste at the prospect of a person such as Walker holding a high profile post, and as part of his attack offered a very inaccurate analysis of creationist beliefs." Er, no. It - and the contents of the earlier Telegraph article that is linked to - were both very accurate indeed. Which is probably why Sibley fails to show his readers exactly what was 'inaccurate'.

He does make the rather desperate allegation that Myers was making a false statement and 'bullying' when suggesting that creationists understand that "presumably God planted dinosaur skeletons in the ground to give us all something to talk about…". As the link supplied showed, SOME not very happy creationists formed a group named 'Christians against dinosaurs' which denies they ever existed. Whilst other more typical YECs obsess somewhat about dinosaurs: https://answersingenesis.org/media/audi ... king-back/

Sibley then shifts his ground and complains that Myers suggests that the regular scientific denials made by (young earth) creationists are comparable to denying certain facts in human history - he speaks of "tired and misguided comparisons". He may have a point there but science is not the same discipline as history and facts are facts whether or not humanity witnessed all the events in question.

Sibley then makes another attempt to portray Myers as having posted 'hyperbolic nonsense' (rather than an accurate analysis of creationist beliefs) in his comment "Creationism doesn’t just deny Darwinian evolution, it denies the findings of astronomy and chemistry, the age of the Universe, the scientific consensus that underpins carbon dating, and ice core samples over half a million years old". But the statement is true eg YECs refuse to accept that light has taken billions of years to reach us from very distant objects or that radiometric dating methods can ever produce an accurate result (unless a rock or fossil actually is less than 6,000 years old). Myers did add:"There are few aspects of basic science that aren’t directly or indirectly challenged by the logical implications of creationism" (most YECs do now accept the reality of gravitational waves). Instead of properly addressing Myers' comments, Sibley repeats that old YEC misleading chestnut about 'carbon-14 in diamonds' which is sheer pseudo-science.

After rubbishing genuine scientists Sibley also claims "creationists ... are supporters of good science". But they aggressively promote false scepticism for doctrinal, not evidence-based, reasons.

Sibley's article is more evidence of the TYPE of person who becomes and remains a hardcore young earth creationist. The real facts of the case don't matter so long as believers of evolution are portrayed as negatively as possible. (It happens both ways but creationists' beliefs are usually presented accurately - and they still protest.)

Personally I believe Walker should be appointed to his new role and should keep it unless and until his beliefs cause him to breach whatever guidelines BBC news presenters should follow when reporting stories impartially and with proper regard to the facts. Thus I disagree with Myers' conclusions. But his article and the earlier one in the Telegraph (which Sibley ignores) was not unfair to creationists.

Londonderry pastor, Rev. Jonathan Campbell, has pledged support for English broadcaster Dan Walker who was recently monstered by the secular commentariat in Britain due to his robust Christianity.

Rev. Campbell of Newbuildings Independent Methodist Church said Mr Walker, a long-standing and respected sports journalist and broadcaster, who is taking up a new role on the British state-broadcaster’s flagship breakfast television show, was being attacked due to his creationist views.

But Rev. Campbell said Mr Walker is a believer in the truth of creation and that his detractors are those who believe in “fairy tales.”

He also supports BWalker's claim of divine appointment

“Isn’t it wonderful that the creator, God, has put a young man like that at the heart of the BBC.

Londonderry pastor, Rev. Jonathan Campbell, has pledged support for English broadcaster Dan Walker who was recently monstered by the secular commentariat in Britain due to his robust Christianity.

Rev. Campbell of Newbuildings Independent Methodist Church said Mr Walker, a long-standing and respected sports journalist and broadcaster, who is taking up a new role on the British state-broadcaster’s flagship breakfast television show, was being attacked due to his creationist views.

But Rev. Campbell said Mr Walker is a believer in the truth of creation and that his detractors are those who believe in “fairy tales.”

He also supports BWalker's claim of divine appointment

“Isn’t it wonderful that the creator, God, has put a young man like that at the heart of the BBC.

The hardline young earth creationists at CMI are discussing TV presenter Dan Walker again. I have no idea to what extent Mr Walker - undoubtedly a professing Christian - would agree with the position of CMI on scientific matters. My guess, though I could be wrong, is that he is a more tolerant person than the fellow Christians at CMI and CMI's even more hardline supporters (or SOME of his non-Christian or anti-creationist critics).http://creation.com/scoffers-will-come-last-days

I believe that some people (not myself - I would say that!) overreacted when Walker was announced as a new newsreader on BBC Breakfast. I also think that CMI are out to exploit such overreactions - in order to complain about how creationists and suspected creationists are being 'persecuted' (criticising their claims in a careful scientific manner rather than calling them nasty names might also be regarded as 'persecution').

This new Philip Bell article declares that "“Scoffers will come in the last days” —they’re already here!" (Oh look, if you query whether a suspected young earth creationist should present a TV news programme you are acting in a manner predicted in the Bible and thus confirming the truth of the Bible.)

Much of Bell's article attacks a slightly over the top article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph about Walker's appointment and also some trenchant comments about an evolution-denying headteacher that were posted on Twitter earlier this year. He does not reference any comments made on this forum, assuming he has seen them (there is also a separate BCSE thread at News and Links).

Bell seeks to dismiss one part of the Rupert Myers Telegraph article that was perfectly accurate. Viz: "“Creationism doesn’t just deny Darwinian evolution, it denies the findings of astronomy and chemistry, the age of the Universe, the scientific consensus that underpins carbon dating, and ice core samples over half a million years old.”To all of this provocation, we simply reply, read or watch Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels and the wealth of articles at creation.com that easily put the lie to all such claims." 'Evolution Achilles' Heels and material at creation.com do NOT put the 'lie' to such claims - as I and others have documented on THIS forum (note that if I challenge CMI directly via their website or by email instead of refuting my claims they censor my words or block my emails*). CMI deny evolution and the age of the Earth uncovered via the scientific method eg radiometric dating. But their claims as to how these are both 'wrong' don't add up scientifically. They are motivated by their (sincere) faith and are not evidence-based.

The rest of the article is really a bit of 'Bible bashing'. It's an opinion piece suggesting that certain events in 2016 (not the world shattering ones but the short-term furore over the appointment of Dan Walker to BBC Breakfast) were 'predicted' by certain Bible verses. For instance:"Referring to those who scorn others for their belief in the historicity of the early part of Genesis, the apostle Peter prophesied that “scoffers will come in the last days”. He warned Christians that these people would mock the idea of Jesus’ second coming, saying “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3–4). This is reminiscent of the evolutionists’ mantra, “the present is the key to the past” which always goes hand in hand with the explicit denial of Genesis 1–11 as history. Peter is even more specific in saying that these End Times scoffers will be known as those who “willfully forget” or “deliberately overlook” the following:the world’s creation out of water by God’s word;the world’s destruction by a mighty flood (2 Peter 3:5–6).This prophecy only really began to find fulfilment in the last two hundred years; tragically, many of the scoffers are within the Church itself. Jude (v. 18) warns believers not to forget these very things: “But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’ ”"

The article is basically a militant 'call to arms' that assumes that whenever the viewpoint of Christian young earth creationism (the viewpoint of CMI) is questioned as unscientific, the critics are to be dismissed as Bible predicted 'scoffers' of the 'last days' who simply engaging in 'insults' and all of them (even the Christian ones) are motivated by 'angst' against the God of Scripture.

I have just flagged the new CMI article and also this thread on Dan Walker's Facebook page for information.

* A recent example. I submitted, via the CMI website,the following comment under the following article. It has been CENSORED (and not addressed).http://creation.com/the-rock-cycle""The validity of the other cycles tends to give the long-age rock cycle credibility and implies that it is still operating, but it is not."Please explain why/how 'not'."